ArticleInternational journal of medical education2022
Learning from patients' written feedback: medical students' experiences.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the concepts of consumer feedback systems for occupational therapy student learning during practice placements: A scoping review.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2024Article
- Dual Coaching of Medical Clerkship Students' History Taking Skills by Volunteer Inpatients at the Bedside and Faculty Physicians on Zoom During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodsFifty-nine medical students evaluated their learning experience of receiving patients' written feedback obtained from the PFCP questionnaire. Students (N = 57) evaluated their experiences by applying a nine-question evaluation survey (Likert scale N = 3 and free-text questions N = 6) and/or participated in a semi-structured interview (N = 6 students). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe analysis of data from the students' evaluation survey was performed using 4-point Likert scale questions presented in mean, SD and range; ability to apply patient-centred communication (3.3, 0.74, 2-4), guidance for further clinical training of clinical skills (3.2, 1.31, 1-4) and visualization of the pedagogical assignment during an encounter (3.0, 1.68, 1-4). A content analysis of the free-text questions from the students' evaluation surveys and interviews resulted in three themes: (1) confidence in clinical practice, (2) application of patient-centred communication and (3) identification of learning needs.
conclusionsThe results indicate that patients' feedback facilitated a reflective self-directed learning process with the identification of learning needs and increased awareness of the patient as a collaborative partner during the encounter. Patients' written feedback adjacent to a patient encounter is identified as a valuable additional learning tool in medical students' workplace learning. Further studies are required to explore how patients' written feedback can be operationalized in different clinical contexts, for example, in in-patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.